Material prepared by the Agency for Legislative Initiatives for Ukrainska Pravda
The Verkhovna Rada has finally adopted the law on the Military Ombudsman. On 17 September, 283 MPs voted in favour. The new post has every chance of strengthening the protection of the rights of military personnel. The Military Ombudsman will be appointed by the President for a five-year term to handle complaints about violations of military personnel’s rights, conduct inspections and issue findings demanding that violations be stopped. The Ombudsman will also report on their activities to both the President and the Verkhovna Rada.
At first glance, this appears to be a long-awaited positive development. In practice, however, the risks seem to outweigh the opportunities. Let us consider whether this reform will indeed improve the protection of military personnel’s rights.
Fourth Time Lucky: What Preceded the Law on the Military Ombudsman
The main risk for the new institution is that Ukraine may once again repeat its past mistakes. Experts from the Agency for Legislative Initiatives have already detailed this experience in the Green Paper on Parliamentary Oversight of the Security and Defence Sector. The Military Ombudsman represents the fourth attempt to protect the rights of military personnel. If the previous three mechanisms failed (hence the need for a new institution), what will make this one different? Why should it succeed where others have not? The tools remain the same — only the title and the person holding the office will change.
Since 1998, Ukraine has had the Parliament Commissioner for Human Rights, whose mandate includes protecting the rights of all individuals, including military personnel. In fact, complaints from service members account for over 25% of all submissions to the Commissioner — more than 28,000 in 2024 alone.
To safeguard military personnel’s rights, the Commissioner conducts monitoring, receives appeals and complaints, and contacts relevant authorities to restore violated rights. The Commissioner is also supported by a Coordination Council on the Protection of the Rights of Military Personnel, Police Officers, and Members of Their Families. In addition, the Commissioner regularly prepares Reports on Human Rights, identifying systemic issues in ensuring the rights of military personnel and providing recommendations on how to address them.
In other words, the Parliament Commissioner for Human Rights already performs all the core functions of a Military Ombudsman — and does so with an established organisational structure, a team of staff, practical experience in protecting military personnel’s rights, and an existing regulatory framework. The Commissioner is already restoring the rights of thousands of service members who turn to the institution for help. Moreover, this is not merely a peacetime Commissioner. The current Commissioner, Dmytro Lubinets, was appointed by the Verkhovna Rada in mid-2022 — presumably with the understanding that during wartime, he would also address issues related to the protection of military personnel’s rights. Yet, it appears this was deemed insufficient, prompting the decision to establish a Military Ombudsman’s Office.
In April 2024, another mechanism was introduced to strengthen the protection of military personnel’s rights — the establishment of the Central Department for the Protection of Service Members’ Rights within the Ministry of Defence. Since its establishment, the department has received over 5,000 complaints, resulting in the restoration of rights for 2,038 service members and their family members, including 1,037 cases in 2025. Nevertheless, this measure also seems to have fallen short of expectations, as the problem of rights violations among service members persists.
To complement the two existing structures, a third one appeared on 30 December 2024 — the President created a new advisory position entitled ‘Presidential Commissioner for the Protection of the Rights of Military Personnel and Their Families’. Yet even this consultative role proved insufficient, so the drafting of the Law ‘On the Military Ombudsman’ began in parallel with its establishment.
A New Player or a Duplication of Powers?
Three previous attempts to protect service members’ rights — all with functions similar to those of the Military Ombudsman — have failed to resolve the issue or ensure adequate protection. The fourth attempt might indeed be more successful. But how will it relate to the previous three? Who will be responsible for what? Which rights will each protect?
The new law introduces no changes to the procedures of the Parliament Commissioner for Human Rights, to whom around a quarter of all complaints come from service members. It seems that both the Commissioner and the Military Ombudsman will engage in monitoring compliance with rights, conducting inspections, addressing violations, and preparing reports and recommendations. The Central Department for the Protection of Service Members’ Rights within the Ministry of Defence will also perform similar functions.
The relationship between the Military Ombudsman and the Presidential Commissioner for the Protection of the Rights of Military Personnel and Their Families appears particularly ambiguous. Both are appointed by the President, and both are tasked with defending the rights of service members. This raises an obvious question: will the same person hold both positions?
A Military Ombudsman Outside the Constitution?
The Law on the Military Ombudsman carries significant risks of being unconstitutional. It stipulates that the President, through the Military Ombudsman, would exercise democratic civilian control over the security and defence sector. However, Article 106(2) of the Constitution explicitly prohibits the President from delegating powers to other persons or bodies.
The Constitution clearly defines the President’s powers, yet it currently contains no provisions regarding either the appointment or dismissal of a Military Ombudsman. To grant such powers legally, constitutional amendments would be required. Nor does the Constitution include the set of functions now assigned to the Ombudsman, who is to be directly subordinated to the President.
Building a mechanism for protecting service members’ rights on an unconstitutional foundation is inherently problematic. If the law were to be ruled unconstitutional, the rights of service members would once again be put at risk, and all the resources and effort invested in creating this new institution would be wasted. In the worst-case scenario, it could set a troubling precedent — one in which the President acts contrary to the Constitution, doing what he deems necessary regardless of its limits.
From Risks to Opportunities
There remain numerous risks that could prevent the Military Ombudsman from effectively protecting the rights of service members. For example, despite the recommendations of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) and the Venice Commission, the Ombudsman will be appointed without an open competition, and the position will be directly dependent on the President. Moreover, the law does not even specify who will be subject to the inspections carried out by the Ombudsman. These and many other issues — dozens, in fact — were identified in expert opinions, including that of the Main Legal Department of the Verkhovna Rada (MLD), yet the law was nonetheless adopted and signed by the President the very next day.
Ahead lies the process of appointing the Military Ombudsman, allocating financial and material resources, and developing and approving the necessary regulatory documents for the institution’s functioning. Will it be successful? Will the Ombudsman avoid repeating the mistakes of the other institutions that were supposed to protect the rights of service members? Will he or she manage to coordinate effectively with these existing institutions so that service members benefit? And will it be possible to avoid the risks of unconstitutionality? One can only hope — hope that the creation of yet another institution will finally address the systemic problem of protecting service members’ rights, which the previous three structures somehow failed to solve.
The main task of the Ombudsman is to respond to violations of rights. When the rights of service members are violated, they can turn to the Ombudsman for assistance. Yet the true strength and value of this institution do not lie in restoring the rights of individual service members, but in identifying systemic causes behind hundreds of such violations. These findings — together with recommendations — will be reflected in reports that are advisory in nature.
The Ombudsman cannot independently eliminate the causes of widespread violations of service members’ rights or reform the system — he or she can only highlight its shortcomings and advise on how to correct them. But if these recommendations are ignored, the problem of rights violations among service members will persist. In that case, the Parliament Commissioner for Human Rights, the Central Department for the Protection of Service Members’ Rights within the Ministry of Defence, the Presidential Commissioner for the Protection of the Rights of Military Personnel and Their Families and the Military Ombudsman will merely mitigate the consequences rather than resolve the root causes.
Author of the material:
